Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-20
SUNDAY. FEBRUARY 90, 1897
The TarA-A Logical Writer.

cries or principles whithersoeyer they
NAV lead him. His logic compels
him to he an avowed Frec-Trader.
If protection be wrong in ITSELF
il cannot he justified by saying
il is only ga little" protection. If
the principle be. wrong, the practice
cannot be justified. Therefore, l.. II.
b. at once candidly owns that he has
no sympathy with the anti-protection-
lists who declare that they are, notwith-
standing their avowed principles, in
favor of Incidental protection and OPP
posed to free trade. If protection
is wrong. it is wrong to levy tariff
which will result in incidental protee-
ton. The revenues of the Govern
ment ought to be derived either from
direct taxation and excise duties, or
else by laying q high tariff upon coffee,
tea, and all other articles not producedin
this country which are brought hither
In word, protection is either right or
wrong, without reference to whether
the protective tariff be one of ten per
cent. ad raIorcDi or one OF fifty per
cent. od Ualorcm.
l.. II. b. says that protection Is
only taking our property without our
consent" In an extract from the Con-
rier-Journai which We printed yester-
day Mr.. WArrERsoN, another ultra
anti-protectionist, maintains that to
take the tariff off wool would not be to
reduce the price of wool. If so, the
protection of wool certainly does not
take any of our property without our
consent. This by the way.
All taxes levied in this country are
supposed to be levied with the consent
of the people who pay them. We are
not taxed without our consent so long
as we have the right to elect
Our lawmakers. So a tariff levied
for protection is levied with our
consent. Either this is true, or
else no tax is laid with a mans con-
sent to which he is individually opposed.
The opponents of the public-schooi
system are compelled to pay taxes to
support the public schools. Is this the
same thing or as bad as stealing? We
could, we think, name a lawyer In
Richmond who would answer that ques-
ton in the affirmative. Money col
lected from all the people of Richmond
is used in the construction OF gas
works, though not one half of them
burn gas. All of them were taxed
TO pay for the. water-works,
though not half of them use
the city water. We maintain
that all these taxes were laid with the
consent of the people, and are there
fore not to be ikened to larceny. And
if our contention is right, then pro-
teetive tariff is levied with the consent
of the people, and therefore is not to
be likened to larceny. The law pro-
vides for protection. Thelaw denounces
stealing. Both these laws were enacted
in the interest OF the community or the
people. According to the theory Of
our Government, they were enacted by
the people themselves. And yet Il. n. b
says that there is no difference between
stealing and protection.
Onthe whole, we rather like L. II. b. Z
letter. 1t draws the line sharply. What
eays our neighbor The State Is i
prepared TO endorse l.. II. BIS views
III not, will it point out the fallacy II
then?-the flaw in our correspondent
argument?
rs tariff Of 10 per cent. teriet
for protection jsisfifGbte
The above, Mr.. Dispatch, is you
inquiry in to-day's paper
The question would seem yer.
strange one il usage had not accustom
ed ms to regard protection in the lgh
many of us do, for one might with a
much reason inquire, lis stealing IN
small way iustiiable Stealing is onl,
taking from us our property withou
cur consent, and protection is onl
taking our property without on
consent. There il no difference be
tween the two as far as injury to tn
losers is concerned, but there is TIN
importent difference between them
the robber steals at his own risk, Will
the protected steals without any risk
he has resisted the law for his owl
benefit. Your question may therefor
be fairly and truthfully answered IN tn
affirmative, that 10 per cent. levied 10
nyotection is right, provided petty lai
ceny is right. There is no difference.
10 Justify protection on the groun
~ the incidental good il is supp0sedt
confer ia equally to justify larceny o
the same grounds for the greater th
rocue the more iorcible his deiene'
lie petty thief can only justify IA
course ON the ground that he or b
l family are in need Of food, or {
J clothing, or OF fuel; but the default'
ana cmbezzler can say: Why, by stea
ing 1 improve business wonderfully.
spend moro money in marketing, m
dry-goods and grocery-bills are large
buy three or four fine suits Of II
tailor instead Of one when was homes
/ sport carriage and horses and on
& ploy a eoachman, and dress him
STYLE; l engage a butler and other a
ditional servants-so altogether ! e
courage trade. I'm benefactor to Il
community. Reduce the argumen
for the incidental benefits OF protectit
to the plain, simple facts, and they a
only the above arguments OF the el
81 bezzler on large scale. In both cas-
business is stimulated, but in beth cas-
itissaking my property TO do II. :.
II 10 per cent. protection Is jnstif
bic, then 20 per cent. is, and there Q
{ be no stopping until cupidity is ful
rrorRed. As soon as the camel got
noso in the millers room thers was
stcpping until the miller himself had
oet out. As soon as the priacipie
nrot3cfion, even 50 smailas per cen
8 eranted, the whole thing is given q
Apd 2Q0 " 800 per cent are as iuStif